There has been a lot of talk recently about the hiring of new coaches and the process that is gone through, or not gone through, in some cases. It is pathetic how much people whine about the process when the teams, or schools, have every right to interview whoever they want, and hire whoever they want.

The dumbest thing I hear people complain about is race when it comes to hiring. I absolutely believe that there are some school administrations that are totally racist, and I completely agree that that is wrong, and has no place anywhere in the world. However, I believe that most schools and teams are looking for nothing more than a coach that will win.

There are the other areas of being a good face for the university or team, and keeping the players out of trouble, but number one on almost everyone’s list is winning. Now there is no reason to believe that a person of any particular race is more likely to win ballgames than another. The reality is that certain sports are more attractive to certain ethnicities for whatever reason.

Basketball is largely dominated by black players, and also has many black coaches. Baseball is arguably the most ethnically diverse and the managers follow suit. The sport that really is the biggest issue is football, and then it is largely at the college level that there is tremendous criticism.

The simple answer to me is that if you want more coaches of other races they need to prove they can do it. I do agree that they could certainly use more opportunities, but if you look at the numbers, there just aren’t as many coaches of other races period when you look at coordinators and other specialty coaches.

I don’t kow that there is a certain reason for that. Maybe it is because more of the players of other races go on to successful professional careers and have no interest in coaching. Maybe it is because it falls more in line with the mentality of white players to pursue coaching because they know their chances are lower to be successful pros, and maybe it is just the random nature of life.

Everyone should be given a fair shot at any job that they are qualified for and have interest in. However, the current trend of universities to name successors before the incumbent even retires really eliminates any chance of a fair search occuring. But should that really matter? Shouldn’t a business, which is what college sports are, be allowed to hire whoever they think will be the most successful? It is not for us to force something upon a business that they don’t see as being in their best interest.

As much as I want to rant again about how much the BCS sucks and that I want a playoff, I will simply leave it alone, for now.

The debate at this point is who deserves to go to the national title game. The short version: Texas and Oklahoma, but we all know that won’t happen. Realistically I would have to say it will end up being Oklahoma and Florida, but I don’t think it should be.

Lets just go through the tope few teams and plead their case.

Alabama: Their only loss came to Florida, who was ranked number two at the time, though I don’t think they deserved that ranking. As much as I would like to say Alabama deserves a shot, they don’t. They didn’t deserve to be number one either. There are multiple one loss teams that are far better and deserve the shot.

Florida: Their one loss came to an unranked Ole Miss team, AT HOME. There is simply no excuse for that, and you do not deserve a shot at the national championship if you can’t even defend your home turf against a much lesser opponent.

USC: Much along the same lines as Florida, they lost to an unranked team. While it was not at home, it was pathetic. If you want to be a national championship contender you can’t have an off week. While their loss was not as bad as Florida’s, they play in a weaker conference and don’t deserve it.

Boise St: They play in the WAC, need I say more?

Utah: Coming from just down the street, I have to give them some credit. While I would not be opposed to them playing in the national championship, I don’t feel they deserve it this year even though they are undefeated. They simply are not as good as a few other teams. Could they win? Sure, anyone can win on any given day, but I don’t think they deserve a shot.

Texas Tech: YOu have to give them some love for what they accomplished this year, and like Utah, I would not be opposed to it, but I don’t think they deserve it. When you get beat that bad, you don’t deserve a shot.

Oklahoma: Their one loss came on a neutral field to their biggest rival, and it was a great game. There was very little separating them, and it could have gone either way. They are playing some of the best period we have seen all year, and they deserve a shot.

Texas: This one to me is a no brainer. Their one loss came against a good Tech team in Lubbock. If that game is played in Austin we aren’t having this discussion because Texas is in the big game. Nonetheless they lost, but it is not enough to knock them out as I see it. They too are playing some great ball, and are the victims of unfortunate scheduling. They finished with a weaker schedule than Oklahoma and thus got robbed of their spot in the Big-12 Championship because of a stupid tie breaker rule. They definitely deserve a shot.

The BCS can say that this conflict is good for the sport and creates interest, but it really just leaves people unsatisfied and provides no closure. It only generates more ifs, ands, and buts, however this is the system in place and we must deal with it until they see the light and fix it.